According to a communique from the Office of Liturgical Celebrationsof the Supreme Pontiff, the patriarch will be received by the HolyFather at 5:45 p.m. in the Vatican Basilica and will thenparticipate in the celebration. John Paul II and Bartholomew I willdeliver a homily and pray the profession of faith together.

The celebration will take place 40 years after the historicalembrace of Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Atenagoras I in Jerusalem inJanuary of 1964

Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara

John Paul II and Bartholomew I will deliver a homily and pray the profession of faith together.

Okay, maybe this will sound like an utterly simple and stupid question, but...how can they pray the profession (or symbol) of faith together? Besides slight differences in translation, what about the filioque?

The answer may be really obvious as to how this is possible, but I just don't see it. Please someone educate me.

The Nicene Creed when recited in Greek by the Latin Church, which it always is at Solemn Papal Mass, is always recited without the Filioque. It is recognized that in Greek it would be heresy. But the Latin procedit (to go forth from) does not mean the same thing as the Greek ekphouresis (to take origin from).

Where have you guys been? The EP or his representative comes to Rome for the Feast of SS. Peter and Paul and the Pope or his rep goes to Constantinople for the Feast of St. Andrew. This has happened every year since the lifting of the excommunication and I would venture to say it always has included some form of joint prayer. Don't tell me this is the straw that is going to send you guys to HOCNA ?

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint

Where have you guys been? The EP or his representative comes to Rome for the Feast of SS. Peter and Paul and the Pope or his rep goes to Constantinople for the Feast of St. Andrew. This has happened every year since the lifting of the excommunication and I would venture to say it always has included some form of joint prayer. Don't tell me this is the straw that is going to send you guys to HOCNA ?

Dear Deacon Lance,

I'm staying right where I am. You're right, this is really nothing new. Starting with Patriarch Athenagoras of less than blessed memory, these types of silly "almost concelebrations" have been going on. However, I can't recall if I've read anywhere that they recited the symbol of faith together.

Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara

The Nicene Creed when recited in Greek by the Latin Church, which it always is at Solemn Papal Mass...

Dear Dn. Lance,

I've watched my share of what I thought were "solemn Papal Masses" on TV over the past few years, and not once have I heard the Creed sung in Greek. The Gospel, yes (I've heard it also sung in Slavonic and most recently Arabic), but never the Creed. Are the televised Masses from Rome not "solemn Papal Masses" (maybe this is a new, technical term)? I would presume they are, but I've only ever heard the Creed sung in Latin. Is it sung twice, and it's just a matter of TV stations editing out Greek for some reason? I don't understand why they would do so if it's a part of the service. I've heard that the Creed is recited/sung in Greek at Papal Masses, but I've never seen it in televised Masses, even from Rome.

I may have misspoke. I know the Gospel is always chanted in Latin and Greek, the Greek Gospel being chanted by a Greek Catholic deacon with the Byzantine introduction and response as well. Perhaps I am incorrect that the Creed is recited twice. I do know however, that in Greek the Holy See has forbidden insertion of the Filioque and the Pope has recited it in Greek with out it.

The Nicene Creed when recited in Greek by the Latin Church, which it always is at Solemn Papal Mass, is always recited without the Filioque. It is recognized that in Greek it would be heresy. But the Latin procedit (to go forth from) does not mean the same thing as the Greek ekphouresis (to take origin from).

Fr. Deacon Lance

Regardless of whether the Solemn Papal Mass that is occurring next week includes the creed in Greek or Latin, I did not know that the West recognized the differences in translation that you described. For that matter, I did not even know that the filioque, if translated into Greek, is heresy according to the Latins, and your inclusion of the two different translations of the two different words is very interesting indeed.

Thanx for that info Fr. Deacon Lance, I feel more informed than I was several moments ago.

Where have you guys been? The EP or his representative comes to Rome for the Feast of SS. Peter and Paul and the Pope or his rep goes to Constantinople for the Feast of St. Andrew. This has happened every year since the lifting of the excommunication and I would venture to say it always has included some form of joint prayer. Don't tell me this is the straw that is going to send you guys to HOCNA ?

Dude, it's ROAC. Get is straight. Those HOCNA wimps are a bunch of liberals.

Matth.16:16 " And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Acts 14:15 "...the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein"

2.Cor.3:3 "Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart."

From those three references alone I see that there is - the Living God- the Son of the Living God- the Spirit of the Living God

And even in the Catholic Study Bible, John 15:26 reads:"The Helper will come - the Spirit, who reveals the truth about God and who comes from the Father. I will send him to you from the Father...."

The KJV reads " But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father,..."

Now where then do they take the filioque from? Does anybody have a brief answer?

Shiloah

« Last Edit: June 28, 2004, 05:18:06 PM by Shiloah »

Logged

"God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" 2.Cor.4:6

By 'celebrate Mass at 6 p.m.", do they mean 6 p.m. Vatican time or that they (most likely EWTN) will broadcast it at 6 p.m. here in the States? I'd really like to know, because I want to watch it to see exactly what +Bartholomew will be doing.

SOLEMN MASS AND IMPOSITION OF THE PALLIUMS WITH POPE JOHN PAUL II, ST. PETER'S SQUARE [LIVE] 2 -+ hours

Join EWTN as forty-four metropolitan archbishops will receive the pallium from the hands of Pope John Paul II.

In an historic fraternal gesture, the Greek Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, will be present for the celebration of the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, founders of the Church in Rome. He will be reciprocating in person for the participation of the Papal representative in the Orthodox celebration of the Solemnity of St. Andrew.

The Patriarch will do nothing more than attend the Mass, although he will have a seat of honor close to the altar just as Archbishop Kyrill, and Metropolitans Maximos, Nicholas, and Constantine do when attending Liturgy at the Byzantine Catholic Cathedral in Pittsburgh. They are to recite the Nicene Creed together all though I don't know if this is tobe during the Mass or at a separate prayer service.

Buried in the schedule of the EP's 2nd official visit to Rome is the following from ZENIT:

The visit of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople will include meetings and culminate in the inauguration of a Roman church, a gift of John Paul II to the Orthodox community.

x x x

Metropolitan Archbishop Gennadios of the Greek-Orthodox in Italy, who is also exarch for Southern Europe of the Ecumenical Throne, asked Bartholomew I to preside at the inauguration on Thursday of the liturgical use of the church of St. Theodore in Rome.

Cardinal Camillo Ruini, vicar general for the Diocese of Rome, has entrusted the church to the Greek-Orthodox community in Rome for liturgical celebrations and pastoral care upon the express wishes of the Pope.

???I am not convinced that having concerns, objections or points of disagreement about this joint 'occasion' are either un-Christian or un-charitable. If one is 'onside' about such 'ecumenical' activity it would be an easy way to dismiss any objector by characterising them as being this or that.

Surely the 'occasion' needs to be examined from a point of whether it is sound in terms of is it compatible with the 'mind' of our Holy and Salvic Orthodox Church? Or what pastoral message does it send out to the faithfull and to the heterodox alike?

One can be a good and considerate neighbour without such symbols. I believe this long standing 'occasion' is not in accord with the 'mind' of our Orthodox Church, that it is deeply unhelpful pastorally and accordingly is not an act of love.

My parents loved me and if they found me in danger of being 'lead astray' or placing myself in a hazardous situation without comprehending I was doing so, would sit me down and explain the reality of the situation, they would guide me even if to do so met with resistance or incomprehension. This was an act of love. If there were others involved they would be dealt with courteously and, if necessary, firmly. This too was love. Love for our brethren and our neighbour is not the same as the sentimental response all too often characterised as love today.

That the EP lives and functions in a state that is potentially if not actually hostile to it's tiny minorities must provide a temptation to seek powerful outside allies, I accept. But what price great titles and long standing attachments if the price is the salt losses its flavour?

Surely the 'occasion' needs to be examined from a point of whether it is sound in terms of is it compatible with the 'mind' of our Holy and Salvic Orthodox Church? Or what pastoral message does it send out to the faithfull and to the heterodox alike?

I hope you didn't mean to say "Slavic". The Orthodox Church is not Slavic. It's Catholic.

"Salvific" is another guess (and yes, it's a word), but if he meant that, he left out a couple of other letters, whereas the other "word", with two letters arranged differently...well, I'd hate to think the Church was Slavic only.

The Nicene Creed when recited in Greek by the Latin Church, which it always is at Solemn Papal Mass, is always recited without the Filioque. It is recognized that in Greek it would be heresy. But the Latin procedit (to go forth from) does not mean the same thing as the Greek ekphouresis (to take origin from).

Perhaps, but the official RC theology of the "filioque" is heretical nonetheless - since it does not propose an economic sending forth of the Holy Spirit by the Son, but that He has His "origin" in the Son as He does God the Father.

Regardless of whether the Solemn Papal Mass that is occurring next week includes the creed in Greek or Latin, I did not know that the West recognized the differences in translation that you described. For that matter, I did not even know that the filioque, if translated into Greek, is heresy according to the Latins, and your inclusion of the two different translations of the two different words is very interesting indeed.

With all due respect to Dcn. Lance, the conclusions you're drawing (and which I think were inferred by what he wrote, so it's not your fault) are incorrect.

The RCC still officially holds to the heretical filioque clause, and will do so until it drops the acts of the Council of Florence, and officially rebukes centuries of theological material stamped with the imrimatur of either the Papacy or it's episcopate. While there may be a distinction that could be made linguistically between the latin clause "filioque" and an attempt to render that in Greek, the reality is that the Triadology taught by the RCC is different than that taught in Orthodoxy - they do teach that the "procession of the Holy Spirit", as in His "origin" from God the Father, also has been given to God the Son - that the Holy Spirit has His origin from both the Father and the Son.

A lot of white washing has been done to get around this, everything it seems short of the Roman Catholics formally rejecting this erroneous doctrine - and that, unfortunately, is one reason why for all of the ink spilled in "ecumenical dialogues" and "consultations", fundamentally nothing has changed.

Now where then do they take the filioque from? Does anybody have a brief answer?

It's an early example of Latin theological creativity gone awry, a "creativity" that eventually came to be justified in the 19th century under the guise of "development of doctrine."

While "filioque-ism" probably had an innocent origin in the west (due to the western tendency not to carefully distinguish between the "economic" and "eternal" procession of the Holy Spirit), things went bad when it began to be asserted by some that the Holy Spirit "eternally" proceeded from God the Son. The origin of this was two fold...

1) A misguided attempt to bolster the "divinity of the Son" against the remnants of Arianism in some parts of the west (particularly amongst the Germanic tribes) - the belief that saying the Son also had the procession of the Holy Spirit like God the Father somehow made the Son seem "more Divine" and hence working against the Arian assertion that the Son was ultimatly a creature, a sort of supreme archangel.

2) Theological speculation as to how the "Spiration" of the Holy Spirit differed from the "Begotteness" of the Son. Some in the west began studying the Holy Trinity as an abstraction, by examining God's unity from the sole p.o.v. of God as one substance, in which the differentation of "persons" solely existed because of the "relations" beween those Persons (i.e. the relationship of the Son being "begotten" from the Father, the relation of the Holy Spirit "proceeding" from the Father, etc.) From this perspective, men with the curiosity of a philosopher, concluded that there was seemingly no differentiating relationship between the "Son" and the "Holy Spirit", hence because of the Divine Unity they are in fact "one Person"...but since that didn't square with Revelation, they concluded that the Holy Spirit had to also proceed from the Son, as He does from the Father. This creates a relationship between the two of them, hence making them two different Persons.

The Holy Scriptures (and the Eastern tradition) never viewed the Holy Trinity in such abstract terms. While it is definately true that the Three Persons are of the same "essence" and this accounts for the Divine unity, the Divine unity is also reckoned as being so because the Holy Trinity has one "source" - God the Father. In the New Testament, whenever you read "God", more often than not it is speaking of "God the Father" - where as the Son and the Holy Spirit are Divine, because they receive and come forth in eternity from God the Father. When looked at this way (and not as an abstraction, which is not how we meet God to begin with - that's putting the cart before the horse), the supposed "logical need" for the filioque clause evaporates...and certainly it has no justification whatsoever from what God has revealed Himself.

Filioque-ism, simply put, is the product of human "logic". It did not originate in the revelation of God Himself - and for human genius to pretend to be able to add to our knowledge of the hidden things of God, is madness.